DOI: 10.3897/ese.2026.e173438

Authors: Olivier Pourret

Abstract: As doctoral theses become increasingly accessible through open repositories and similarity-checking software is applied more widely, many early-career researchers encounter the rejection of manuscripts that are legitimately derived from their theses. This viewpoint examines the complexities of text recycling (often inaccurately labelled ‘self-plagiarism’), reviews how publisher policies and editorial practices have evolved in the past decade, and argues for transparent communication among authors, supervisors, and editors. Drawing on the Text Recycling Research Project Best Practices for Researchers and a model policy for publishers, this article proposes measures such as author disclosures, clear repository embargo policies, and submision-system prompts to reconcile the principles of open science with fair publication practices. A more harmonised approach would serve not only authors but also the integrity of the scholarly record.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2026.e165929

Authors: Janaynne Carvalho do Amaral

Abstract: In July 2023, version 3.0 of standard terminology for peer review was published by the National Information Standards Organization. The terminology approaches four aspects of the peer review process: identity transparency, reviewer interacts with, review information published, and post-publication commenting. Using examples of open peer review models with public participation implemented by open access journals covering different subjects, the inclusion of two new categories in the next version of the terminology is proposed herein: manuscript review and pre-publica-tion commenting.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2025.e160424

Authors: Bor Luen Tang

Abstract: A paradox was observed with regard to an increase in gold open access publications despite the increase in financial constraints. While this was viewed positively by some as an indication of strategic adaptation and financial sacrifice to publish in open access journals with an impact factor instead of conference proceedings, there could be alternative explanations for the paradox. I propose views that reflect more negative issues with citations, peer review, and an arguably suboptimal mutually propagating publishing loop for gold open access publications.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2025.e165043

Authors: Reese Richardson, Matt Spick

Abstract: The combination of open-access datasets, machine learning workflows, increased computing capacity, and generative artificial intelligence has effectively removed many of the rate-limiting steps in manuscript production. This has created an industry of click-data science and a flood of low-quality manuscripts based on large health datasets such as the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, the UK Biobank, and the US FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. These papers often employ statistically appropriate methods and real data, but introduce misleading results and false discoveries to the literature. Here, we offer suggestions for editors on how to identify such manuscripts and reject them at the point of submission, reducing the burden on the publishing process.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2025.e145158

Authors: Lea Škorić, Miroslav Rajter, Bojan Macan, Jelka Petrak

Abstract: Background: Researchers’ attitudes to, and use of, open access publishing are shaped by many factors, including the characteristics of scientific disciplines – whether STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Medicine) or SSH (Social Sciences and Humanities) – and various micro-characteristics of the environment in which the researchers operate.Objectives: To analyse the attitudes of Croatian authors to open access (OA) publishing and to explore disciplinary differences between researchers in STEM and those in SSH.Methods: Croatian researchers from both groups – STEM and SSH – were surveyed at the beginning of 2023. The online survey comprised 18 questions covering general attitudes towards OA, OA publishing models, the pay-to-publish option, and the criteria for choosing publication outlets.Results: Out of 1042 researchers who responded to the survey, the analysis focused on the 763 (a response rate of about 5%) who fully completed the questionnaire. The majority of respondents expressed support for OA publishing and believed that it was beneficial to research and education. However, their attitudes towards specific benefits and shortcomings of OA publishing showed significant disciplinary differences: researchers in SSH were more convinced that OA enables timely distribution of new knowledge and makes it more visible, whereas researchers in STEM were more concerned about the impact of OA on the further commercialization of scientific publishing and about questionable peer review standards often associated with OA. In selecting a journal for publication, the respondents were motivated primarily by the journal’s reputation. However, researchers in STEM tended to prioritize the journal’s quantitative metrics, whereas researchers in SSH considered such practical aspects as the time taken by a journal to publish and its acceptance rate to be more important. Differences between the two categories of researchers in their attitudes towards publishing in exclusively pay-to-publish journals were statistically significant: researchers in STEM were more receptive to that model whereas those in SSH were opposed to publication fees or article processing charges, even if they were paid not by authors themselves but by their employers, funders, or other entities.Conclusion: Researchers in STEM and those in SSH did not differ significantly in their general attitude towards OA publishing. The differences, when present, stemmed partly from the characteristics of scientific disciplines and partly from differences in the criteria for promotions. Researchers in STEM published significantly more often in international pay-to-publish OA journals, whereas researchers in SSH published significantly more often in national diamond OA journals. Continued state financial support to national diamond OA journals, together with making available more funds to publish in international OA journals, will be crucial to maintaining the current level of OA publishing in Croatia.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2025.e120210

Authors: Hristina Prodanova, Stelian Dimitrov

Abstract: Background: The requirement of publishing high-quality papers in established peer-reviewed journals is still in the early days of implementation among academic geographers in Bulgaria, which limits the visibility and impact of Bulgarian research and delays the possibilities of academic recognition and international collaboration.Objectives: To examine the current visibility and impact of Bulgarian geographers using quantitative analysis of publicly available data derived from eight scientometric databases and social media platforms.Methods: Relevant data were collected for 116 researchers affiliated with five institutions from the following sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Publons, ORCID, Google Scholar, Research Gate, LinkedIn, and X (Twitter). Using Microsoft Excel, the performance of each of the researchers and each of the institutions was quantified in terms of (1) the number of publications, (2) the number of citations, (3) H-index, (4) i10-index, and (5) Research Interest Score. The scores were also plotted using RAWGraphs and Microsoft PowerPoint.Results: Only half of the researchers had published in internationally indexed journals. The institutions and departments in the capital city, Sofia, enjoyed significantly and disproportionately higher visibility than those from smaller towns. Geographers from the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences (Sofia) and one department from Sofia University showed the highest visibility on Scopus (100%), whereas two rural universities – the University of Veliko Tarnovo and Shumen University – were visible mostly on ResearchGate and Google Scholar. Overall visibility of each institution on social media was very low (8%–16%).Conclusions: The analysis led to several recommendations on increasing the visibility and impact of Bulgarian research in geography. These recommendations will be valuable in research management, public relations, especially in improving communications and devising development strategies.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2024.e124173

Authors: Joshua Wang

Abstract: The open access movement has drastically reconfigured the financial burdens of scholarly publishing. Yet, the influence of a marketized scholarly publishing system on doctoral education remains unexplored. I reflect on my own PhD candidature to illustrate how article processing charges disempower doctoral candidates. I argue that the current open access publishing model unfairly advantages candidates with personal, familial and/or institutional wealth. The inequalities imposed on doctoral students by our sectors’ current publishing habits ultimately bias who will be paid to produce and safeguard knowledge in the future. Doctoral students can no longer be ignored in debates over open access publishing.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2023.e114977

Authors: Ljiljana Jertec Musap

Abstract: JATS XML (Journal Article Tag Suite) is an XML-based format used for publishing scholarly content. It has multiple advantages over traditional publishing methods but faces adoption challenges due to the need for relatively expensive tools and/or manual work. In 2023, the HRČAK Portal’s team enabled automatic full-text con-version from DOCX to JATS XML which does not require prior knowledge of XML nor additional tools. Created JATS facilitates content and reference mining as well as transformation to HTML. It also improves cross-device compatibility and produces interactive links for an enhanced reading experience.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2023.e107138

Authors: Thao Trinh Thi Phuong, Tien-Trung Nguyen, Nam Nguyen Danh, Dinh Ngo Van, Hoang Dinh Luong, Le Van An Nguyen, Trung Tran

Abstract: Background: Digital transformation refers to applying digital technology in various fields of society. In the last 5 years, digital transformation has spread to most areas of social life, including education. However, research on digital transformation in education is still fragmented.Objectives: The aim of the study was to present a comprehensive review of studies on digital transformation in education using bibliometric analysis.Methods: We searched the Scopus database from inception to 1 January 2023 using the search terms ‘digital transformation’ AND ‘education’ within abstracts, keywords, or titles of journal articles or conference papers written in English. The retrieved articles were analysed using VOSviewer and Biblioshiny tools.Results: A total of 1329 relevant studies were retrieved. Although the first paper in this field was published in 1999, the number of publications has increased rapidly only in the past 4 years. The most influential countries in this field are the developed countries (Russian Federation, Germany, and the United States), but scholars from the developing countries (Indonesia and Thailand) are among the most productive. Papers on digital transformation are frequently published in journals with lower rankings within the Scopus database. Using VOSviewer for keyword co-occurrence analysis, we classified the research topics related to digital transformation in educa-tion into four main groups: digital transformation in higher education under the impact of the coronavirus disease pandemic 2019 pandemic, applying the technolo-gies of the Fourth Industrial Revolution to education, digitization and digital compe-tence in education in the context of digital transformation, and learning forms using technology (for example, e-learning, m-learning, and blended learning) in higher-education institutions.Conclusions: Four research trends related to digital transformation in education were identified. These trends may also change as digital transformation continues to develop.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2023.e106656

Authors: Dejana Golenko, Evgenia Arh, Ksenija Bazdaric

Abstract: Background: Although opinions of scientists about open access and the importance of their skills in information literacy have been investigated earlier but not, to our knowledge, of those in Croatia.Objective: The objective was to analyse the opinions on open access and on open-science practices before implementing open-science policies.Methods: Scientists at the University of Rijeka (N = 1256) were invited to complete, anonymously, an online questionnaire on open science (Google Forms) in 2020 and their responses were analysed.Results: Altogether 192 participants (a response rate 15%) were involved in this study, of which 110 (57%) were women. The mean age of the participants was 42 years (stand-ard deviation 11). The participants pursued careers in biomedical (37%), social (31%), or technical (14%) sciences; 20% were early-career researchers or postdoctoral research-ers, and 80% held the rank of assistant professor or higher. Most of them (88%) agreed that journals should be open access and 77% said they would choose the open-access journal if they had to choose between two journals with similar impact factors. Most (83%) considered publishing fees (article processing charges) to be too high; fewer than half (45%) considered the impact factor to be more important than open access; and 28% believed open access journals to be of lower quality. Nearly three-fourths (74%) had published at least one article in an open access journal, and 45%, without paying any fee. Only a few (10.9%) archived their articles in institutional or national repositories; more than a quarter (27%), on their web pages; and close to half (43%), on their social networks. To obtain papers not available to read online, more than half (56%) used Sci-Hub; slightly more than half (51%) wrote to the authors; 40% asked col-leagues for help; and 35% approached a librarian.Conclusions: Most of the scientists in our study were in favour of open access but con-sidered the publication fees to be too high. Their archiving was inadequate: few used any institutional or national repositories. Therefore, the scientists need to be more information literate and require guidance and help from librarians and will benefit from training in information literacy including the principles of open access.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2023.e97925

Authors: Maryna Zhenchenko, Iryna Izarova, Yulia Baklazhenko

Abstract: Background: The war influences every step of the publishing process from the organ-izational structure of the journal and its business model to the psychological and financial well-being of its staff.Objectives: The main aim of our research was to collect and analyse data on how the war has changed the operation and daily lives of those who work in editorial services and how significantly it has impacted their job and work.Methods: The surveyed population comprised the staff on the scientific journals listed in the Ukrainian electronic register of the state scientific institution, namely the Ukrainian Institute of Scientific and Technical Expertise and Information. The participants were asked to complete a questionnaire designed to collect data on the background and activities of the journal during wartime.Results: Among a total of 160 respondents (a response rate of 13.2%), 85 (53.1%) expe-rienced changes in editorial structure and work, particularly evident in fewer articles (mentioned by 71, or 44.4%, respondents), a switch to working remotely owing to relo-cation of staff (38, or 23.8%, respondents), changes in the frequency of publication (34, or 21.3%, respondents), changes in the topics covered in the articles (25, or 15.6%, respondents), and staff cuts (16, or 10%, respondents).Conclusions: Ukrainian editors continued their work despite severe psychological difficulties and financial dependency. The editors expect greater support from the international community and suggestions on practical strategies to deal with the challenges without significant losses. Continuing surveys to identify problems arising from the changing conditions were also recommended.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2023.e98101

Authors: Yuki Yamada, Andreas Nishikawa-Pacher, Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva

Abstract: Some journals require users to register before accessing a scientific paper, despite labelling that content as open access (OA) and free-of-charge. We refer to such cases as members-only OA (MOOA), which we contend is not ‘free’ since users are forced to ‘pay’ with personal data. Scholarly content may be accessible via MOOA to either the in-browser text (HTML) or to the archival-friendly version (PDF), or both. We suggest a four-tier typology to capture the degree of openness based on this observation. We believe that technical guidelines of OA implementation should not permit MOOA.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2023.e96778

Authors: Danielle S. Gash, Christopher H. Wortley

Abstract: Artwork within publications, broadly covering non-text items including graphs, diagrams, and photographs, is typically published under a copyright licence, and permission for the reproduction of such items needs to be sought. The various image rights can be difficult to navigate, especially in the era of open access, and thus at The Lancet, we have developed a streamlined workflow to guide our teams on artwork permission processes in our journals. We present a practical guide for other publishing professionals, which can be adapted to meet their resources and needs.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2022.e95926

Authors: Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva

Abstract: In the academic world, despite their corrective nature, there is still a negative stigma attached to retractions, even more so if they are based on ethical infractions. Editors-in-chief and editors are role models in academic and scholarly communities. Thus, if they have multiple retractions or a record of academic misconduct, this viewpoint argues that they should not serve on journals’ editorial boards. The exception is where such individuals have displayed a clear path of scholarly reform. Policy and guidance is needed by organizations such as the Committee on Publication Ethics.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2022.e91290

Authors: Jaime Teixeira da Silva

Abstract:

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2022.e90113

Authors: Olivier Pourret

Abstract: Commentary on open access

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2022.e77781

Authors: Tanja Vuckovic Juros

Abstract: Open science offers hope for new accountability and transparency in social sciences. Nevertheless, it still fails to fully consider the complexities of qualitative research, as exemplified by a reflection on sensitive qualitative data sharing. As a result, the developing patterns of rewards and sanctions promoting open science raise concern that quantitative research, whose “replication crisis” brought the open science movement to life, will benefit from “good science” re-evaluations at the expense of other research epistemologies, despite the necessity to define accountability and transparency in social sciences more widely and not to conflate those with either reproducibility or data sharing.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2021.e75834

Authors: Libor Ansorge

Abstract: The digital age has enabled unprecedented opportunities in the dissemination of information. Thanks to the Internet, research results are available to virtually anyone in the world. Thanks to platforms such as the Open Journal System, a scientific journal can be published by practically anyone with minimal demands on resources, and even a relatively small editorial team can focus more on the quality of published articles than on the editorial process itself. Nevertheless, publishing procedures have recently been adopted which do not allow parts of readers to have seamless access to the content of scientific articles.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2021.e59032

Authors: Dasapta Erwin Irawan, Juneman Abraham, Jonathan Peter Tennant, Olivier Pourret

Abstract: Background: Earth sciences is one of those sensitive field sciences that are closely needed to solve local problems within local physical and social settings. Earth researchers find state-of-the-art of topics in earth sciences by using scientific databases, conduct research on the topics, and write about them. However, the accessibility, readability, and usability of those articles for local communities are major problems in measuring the impact of research, although it may be covered by well-known international scientific databases.Objectives: To ascertain empirically whether there are differences in document distribution, in the proportions of openly accessible documents, and in the geographical coverage of earth sciences topics as revealed through analyses of documents retrieved from scientific databases and to propose new measures for assessing the impact of research in earth sciences based on those differences.Methods: Relevant documents were retrieved using ‘earth sciences’ as a search term in English and other languages from ten databases of scientific publications. The results of these searches were analysed using frequency analysis and a quantitative- descriptive design.Results: (1) The number of articles in English from international databases exceeded the number of articles in native languages from national-level databases. (2) The number of open-access (OA) articles in the national databases was higher than that in other databases. (3) The geographical coverage of earth science papers was uneven between countries when the number of documents retrieved from closed-access commercial databases was compared to that from the other databases. (4) The regulations in Indonesia related to promotion of lecturers assign greater weighting to publications indexed in Scopus and the Web of Science (WoS) and publications in journals with impact factors are assigned a higher weighting.Conclusions: The dominance of scientific articles in English as well as the paucity of OA publications indexed in international databases (compared to those in national or regional databases) may have been due to the greater weighting assigned to such publications. Consequently, the relevance of research reported in those publications to local communities has been questioned. This article suggests some open-science practices to transform the current regulations related to promotion into a more responsible measurement of research performance and impact.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2021.e63663

Authors: Olivier Pourret, David William Hedding, Daniel Enrique Ibarra, Dasapta Erwin Irawan, Haiyan Liu, Jonathan Peter Tennant

Abstract: Background: Open access (OA) implies free and unrestricted access to and re-use of research articles. Recently, OA publishing has seen a new wave of interest, debate, and practices surrounding that mode of publishing.Objectives: To provide an overview of publication practices and to compare them among six countries across the world to stimulate further debate and to raise awareness about OA to facilitate decision-making on further development of OA practices in earth sciences.Methods: The number of OA articles, their distribution among the six countries, and top ten journals publishing OA articles were identified using two databases, namely Scopus and the Web of Science, based mainly on the data for 2018.Results: In 2018, only 24%–31% of the total number of articles indexed by either of the databases were OA articles. Six of the top ten earth sciences journals that publish OA articles were fully OA journals and four were hybrid journals. Fully OA journals were mostly published by emerging publishers and their article processing charges ranged from $1000 to $2200.Conclusions: The rise in OA publishing has potential implications for researchers and tends to shift article-processing charges from organizations to individuals. Until the earth sciences community decides to move away from journal-based criteria to evaluate researchers, it is likely that such high costs will continue to maintain financial inequities within this research community, especially to the disadvantage of researchers from the least developed countries. However, earth scientists, by opting for legal self- archiving of their publications, could help to promote equitable and sustainable access to, and wider dissemination of, their work.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2020.e59855

Authors: Denys Wheatley

Abstract: A brief discussion is presented of the use of "ize" rather than "ise" in most current day journals. The need for editors and authors to be consistent in their spelling remains an issue.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2020.e54523

Authors: Hilary Okagbue, Jaime Teixeira da Silva, Timothy Anake

Abstract: The Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI) is a prominent open access (OA) publisher that uses article processing charges (APCs) as its business model. Our objective was to determine the association between the APCs levied by MDPI journals and 1) their inclusion in Scopus and Web of Science databases or 2) their stature, as represented by their CiteScore (Elsevier’s Scopus) and Impact Factor (awarded by Clarivate Analytics). Among the 227 journals published by MDPI, 51 had both IF and CiteScore; 107, only a CiteScore; and 84, neither IF nor CiteScore. The charges levied by the journals varied widely, from 0 to CHF 2000 (Swiss francs), the most frequent figure (159 journals) being CHF 1000, or about €930. The amount of APCs was found to be correlated to IF (R² = 0.64; p <0.001; 107 journals) and also to CiteScore (R² = 0.619; p <0.001; 53 journals). The charges levied by journals that had both IF and CiteScore were significantly higher than those charged by journals with neither IF nor CiteScore (p <0.05). The charges were also correlated to the age of the journal: the more recently launched journals charged less than the older journals did.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2020.e51987

Authors: Jonathan P. Tennant

Abstract: Both Web of Science and Scopus are critical components of the current research ecosystem, providing the basis for university and global rankings as well as for bibliometric research. However, both platforms are structurally biased against research produced in non-Western countries, non-English language research, and research from the arts, humanities, and social sciences. This viewpoint emphasizes the damage that these systematic inequities inflict upon global knowledge production systems and the need for research funders to unite to form a more globally representative, non-profit, community-controlled infrastructure for the global pool of research knowledge.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2020.e57377

Authors: Jaime Teixeira da Silva

Abstract: European Science Editing (ESE), a platinum open access journal, is gaining recognition as one of the prime outlets for publishing-related topics, as evidenced by its 2019 rise into the second quarter of Scimago’s Journal Rankings and by its Scopus CiteScore of 1.3. However, the discoverability of knowledge and information in ESE is currently limited by the fact that manuscripts published before 2003 are not indexed, that none of the papers published before May 2016 have a DOI, and that not all information that appears on the html version of a paper appears on its PDF version, and vice versa. Finally, because ESE is already indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals, all papers should be archived on that platform. Such improvements would undoubtedly take time and some resources, but if they could be achieved, the discoverability of the journal would clearly be fortified.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2020.e51051

Authors: Sergey V Gorin, Anna M Koroleva, Alexey N Gerasimov, Alexander A Voronov

Abstract: Objective: To observe changes in the number, form (print and online), and distribution (by academic disciplines) of Russian journals indexed in the first three years of the Russian Science Citation Index (RSCI).Background: The globalization of science and the need to involve Russia in the international process of knowledge exchange have influenced the main directions of publication activity and interaction with the world scientific community. Methods: Statistical information freely available through the databases of the Scientific Electronic Library of Russia for January 2019 were compared with data from January 2016. Results: In 2016, the number of Russian journals included in the RSCI was 650; by 2019, the number had increased to 771, an increase of 18.6%. The number of journals with printed and online versions increased by 13.3% to reach 266 units. The number of Russian journals indexed in Scopus and the Web of Science databases increased during the period, as did the number of journals with both print and online versions.Conclusions: Journals from the RSCI database tend also to be added to Scopus or WoS databases and do not remain exclusively as part of the local database. Implementing the RSCI project had a positive impact on the full spectrum of Russian academic journals, which are increasingly committed to improving their work to continue to be part of RSCI or Scopus or WoS databases.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2020.e54172

Authors: Barbara DeCastro, Anna Geraci, Jayme Trott, G. Peter Snyder, Yaswant Dayaram

Abstract: A desire for both transparency in research and widespread access to the results of research has led to activism in support of open access publishing. Open access publishing, particularly publishing industry-sponsored research, can be complex. The overarching benefits of, and challenges to, open access are described, illustrated with the initiatives related to Medical Publishing Insights and Practices to help promote a better understanding of open access and its importance in ensuring transparency in industry-sponsored research.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2020.e50566

Authors: Ksenija Bazdaric

Abstract: I am excited to announce that with this volume European Science Editing (ESE) has shifted from the print to a fully digital open access version. The journal underwent several changes last year. First of all, our publisher, the European Association of Science Editors (EASE) was generously offered – and accepted – a new ARPHA submission system (powered by PenSoft). Together with the EASE president Pippa Smart and EASE Council, we decided to transform ESE into a fully open access online journal. After several months of planning and re-thinking our strategy, a small working group (some members of the EASE Council and of ESE’s associate editors) prepared a proposal, the main idea of which was to divide the journal in two overlapping publications: European Science Editing and EASE Digest. The former will continue to publish original articles, reviews (formerly “essays”), viewpoints, and correspondence using the fully open access ARPHA submission system (flow publishing) but will drop the other sections, namely News notes, The editor’s bookshelf, This site I like, and EASE Forum Digest). These sections, which our readers consider particularly valuable, will now be published in EASE Digest with a few selected articles from ESE. The Digest will be available to EASE members only. As the proposal was accepted by the EASE Council in September 2019, the journal’s transformation is already under way. I wish to thank Silvia Maina (This site I like), Fiona Murphy (Book reviews), Elise Langdon-Neuner (EASE-Forum Digest), Anna Maria Rossi (The Editor’s bookshelf), and James Hartley and Denys Wheatley (members of the International Advisory Board) for the great work they have done and for their cooperation.

HTML

XML

PDF